Document Type : Article


1 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 MA. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


The U.S. has imposed extraterritorial sanctions against Iran and thereby impeded free trade for WTO members. In this article, we examined U.S. extraterritorial sanctions against Iran following the United States' unilateral withdrawal from JCPOA and its possible violations of its WTO obligations. Also, while examining the nature of extraterritorial sanctions, the GATT exception rules in particular national security are examined by raising the Russia-Ukraine Transit case of 2019. The study found that, given the scope of the sanctions imposed, the U.S. government has violated some of its obligations under the WTO and in view of the WTO panel interpretation of the defense of national security, the justification for extraterritorial sanctions subsequently imposed after withdrawal from the JCPOA is not acceptable and there are some legal solutions under WTO which enable the States to challenge the U.S. Unilateralism.


1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. وکیل، امیر ساعد؛ تحصیلی، زهرا (1392)، ایران و تحریم‌های بین‌المللی، تهران: مجمع علمی فرهنگی مجد.
ب) مقالات
2. پیری، مهدی؛ شکیب، محمدرضا؛ احمدپور، بهاره (1397)، «بررسی رویکرد دیوان‌های داوری ایکسید به دفاع ضرورت و شرط استثنا: تأملی بر پرونده‌های گازی آرژانتین»، نشریۀ مطالعات حقوق انرژی، دورۀ 4، ش 2، ص 403-377.
3. رضوی، سید محمدحسن؛ فاطمه زین‌الدینی (1397)، «اثر بازگشت تحریم‌های آمریکا بر صنعت نفت و گاز ایران: فرصت‌ها و تهدید‌ها»، نشریۀ مطالعات حقوق انرژی، دورۀ 4، ش1، ص 60-37.
4. زمانی، سید قاسم؛ غریب‌آبادی، کاظم (1394)، «واکاوی قانونی بودن و مشروعیت تحریم‌های یکجانبۀ اقتصادی تحت حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامۀ دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، دورۀ 20، ش 72، ص 129-93.
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
5. AALCO Secretariat (2013), Unilateral And Secondary Sanctions; An International Law Perspective, New Delhi.
B) Articles
6. Allen, S. H., & Lektzian, D. J. ,(2013), “Economic sanctions: A blunt instrument?”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 50, No.1, pp.121-135.
7. Balan, G. D. (2013). “The Latest United States Sanctions Against Iran: What Role to the WTO Security Exceptions?”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 18, No.3, pp.365-393.
8. Golmohammadi, V., & Imani, P. (2016). “The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions against Islamic Republic of Iran in the Light of International Economic Law: Legal Effects and Economics Consequences”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3 S3), p. 60.
9. Howse, R. L., & Genser, J. M. (2007). “Are EU trade sanctions on Burma compatible with WTO law”, Mich. J. Int'l L., 29.
10. Kontorovich, E. (2003), “The Arab League boycott and WTO accession: Can foreign policy excuse discriminatory sanctions”, Chi. J. Int'l L., 4.
11. Larsson, Kristina (2011), “United States extraterritorial application of economic sanctions and the new international sanctions against Iran” (Master thesis), Lund niversity, lund, Sweden.
12. Meyer ,A.jeffrey(2009), “Second Thoughts on Secondary Sanctions” ,University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 30, No. 3.
12. McCurdy, Meghan(1997), “Unilateral Sanctions With a Twist: The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996”, Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 13.
13. Ngangjoh, Y., & Rios-Herran, R. (2004), “WTO dispute settlement system and the issue of compliance: multilateralizing the enforcement mechanism”, Manchester J. Int'l Econ. L.1, 15.
14. Pauwelyn, J. (2000), “Enforcement and countermeasures in the WTO: rules are rules-toward a more collective approach”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.94, No.2, pp.335-347.
15. Schloemann, H. L., & Ohlhoff, S. (1999), “Constitutionalization” and Dispute Settlement in the WTO: National Security as an Issue of Competence. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No.2, pp.424-451.
16. Singh, S. (2012), WTO Compatibility of United States' Secondary Sanctions Relating to Petroleum Transactions with Iran. Neu Delhi.
17. Spanogle Jr, J. A. (1997),”Can Helms-Burton Be Challenged under WTO”, Stetson L, Rev., 27, 1313.
C) Documents
18. ICJ Report (1986), Case Concerning Military and Para Military Activities in and against Nicaragua.
19. GATT Panel Report (1986), United States – Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua, L/6053.
20. ICJ Report (2018-2019), Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America).